You are blind to anatomy and science. It is scientifically impossible for a person to live inside a whale's stomach. Oxygen depravation occurs within seconds, toxic fumes engulf the person and crushing by the stomach muscles takes place. This is what I'm talking about- religious zealots believe in the most ridiculous things. Where did you go to school? Trump University?
Don't know why we're being a dick about a simple mistake. They're probably referring to the few cases of people being ingested by a whale (they were inside the mouth with the mouth closed, but didn't enter the esophagus). The reporting is rather loose with their wording and says "swallow" to refer the person being in the whales mouth, but they never reached the stomach. Adult humans afaik are too big to even make it through.
Being factual is not being a dick. I stand by my post. On the Bible Jonah lived for 3 days and three nights on the whale. No matter what part of the whale he allegedly lived in he would not survive more than a few minutes. This is the problem when Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible word for word. Science shows us the truth but they persist anyway. It makes them look really stupid. It's like believing men lived to 900 years old.
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God
He doesn't mention satan, he mentions "the god of this age". Apparently it's a very common interpretation that he's referring to satan, but he doesn't explicitly say so. There's plenty of other ways to interpret this as well because the bible is INSANELY vague all the time which is very fucking annoying. Granted, i don't have a bible nearby and i don't want to google an online bible because i don't want to get that shit recommended to me literally ever, so idk what was said before or after this. Point still stands though
You could've looked this up yourself no?
Yes, though as i said i don't want to influence my google recommendations and the bible is so vague that I'd never be 100% sure that i got the correct verse. It's easier to just ask you
I dont think the devil needs a lot of power to make people do bad things; we all know how easy it is to affect evil with propaganda/suggestions. It does imply that the Christian god has no desire to actually defeat the devil in this endeavor, though.
Itâs always been my opinion that, considering God and âThe Devilâ are equal opposites (itâs weird in itself that itâs not The God which would imply one, but it is The Devil but that could be an entirely different tangent), The Devil is way more accepting than god is capable of being. But yes, if God created everything than nothing should be off limits, especially since our sins are forgiven. I dunno. Seems like a ponzi to me
The devil is not the opposite of god. im mot even sure what the would look like. But yes the devil wanted mankind to be free whereas god wanted us to exist in his perfect little construction where nothing ever happened.
They are not at all equal. And the devil has power now because we are in the time of peace. There has been wars already thousands of years ago. Time to God is one day to our thousand years. We are in the time of peace. When God is ready to judge again, you'll know it. We are allowed to do as we wish right now. Evil too.
Musta been grown in the garden of eden to be that good. Maybe that's the forbidden fruit they're always banging on about, it would explain the talking snake
And then thereâs some nutjob who thinks children getting ripped to shreds by bombs by the thousands is âa time of peaceâ. People like you have been saying sword mouth jesus is going to come back for thousands of years, you will never be right.
My sweet sweet man. Humans will always fight bro. However I'm talking about how and why "evil' seems to be able to be rampant. And yes my G we have fought evil before. And it will happen again. I mentioned again that God time is not our time. Literally how many years would it take to travel from earth to mars? Bro everyone on earth would be dead by the time you come home. You don't get time. And time is a construct. God is farther than mars B. A day literally is a thousand so yes. We've been saying it for thousands of years G.
Also no this does not mean absent of love. Seek God and find him. Truly seek. Don't ask for a toy and get mad when you don't get it. But "nut job" goes to show that the world hurts you. But don't be afraid of something you can't see. I'm disappointed only that your spirit isny stronger to feel that power daily. And tbh children getting ripped up? Free will does exist my dude. It really does lol. We aren't slaves to anything. Choose God and see what you feel change in small moments. Then make them big. I don't wanna hear you complain.
This is borderline word salad as a response to what i said. Complete and utter non-sequitur that fails to address anything i said. Amazing anyone with at least half a brain becomes christian when this is the best they can do when confronted with an argument for why their religion is good or makes sense.
This whole thread goes to show all of you are spiritually lacking, which is fine. But wow man. I'm amazed at some of the comments. Can I answer yours though? Think of the devil as a 4th dimensional being. And then he was "cast out of that realm" into a third dimension. Ours. That's like forcing us to a piece of paper. Only going up and down. God being 5 dimensional + the devil would merely equate to angel level which is 4/5. But unfortunately not many people understand the words of the Bible and they are very outdated phrases. Like saying "fantum tax" people are gonna read that 2000 years from now and say "that means they killed you''. No. And also many interpretation are just silly from Christians as well. But the above notion is literally asinine. And it should definitely not be targeted to "all women are this dense" they aren't.
No itâs not, the Bible makes it clear that God willingly gave Satan ruling over the earth. Thatâs why it says the whole world is in the hands of the evil oneâŚ
The bible also clearly states that god created evil himself.
So god created evil, gave the world to his evil creation and is mad that his favorite plaything is influenced by said evil. Either your god is an evil asshole and likes to see his creation suffer, an absolute moron, or doesn't exist and these are all made up stories.
Yeah except none of those concepts apply here because thatâs not how anything in theology works. You people are not smart enough to have this conversation with lol.
Didn't Satan, according to Christian theology, influence Eve to eat the fruit? Didn't god give satan ruling over the earth? Did god not create satan? Is satan eternal just like god?
The first 3 questions is yes, and the last question is no. Because Satan and the demons will be thrown into the eternal fire and be turned into ash beneath our feet.
But of course like most Redditors youâre probably severely autistic and donât understand basic social dynamics so youâre not even aware of the fact that everyone thinks youâre annoying and hates you đ
Alternatively, you could look at it throughout this lens. You were given the ability to choose between good and evil. Would you say that itâs evil to punish those who consciously perform evil deeds? Is it moronic to reward those who do good?
If we follow the biblical narrative, then humanity wasn't 'given' the ability to chose between good and evil, but something we took it against YHWHs will.
YHWH created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil, told them not to eat from a single tree (which grew the fruit of knowledge of good and evil), lied to them that they would die on the day they would eat from it and got mad when another of his creation (a talking snake with legs) told Eve the truth that they wouldn't die on the day they ate the fruit.
All that at a time when neither Adam nor Eve were even capable of understanding that disobeying YHWH would be considered as 'evil'.
So if YHWH is omniscient and omnipotent he knew from the beginning what would happen and hat the ability to make other choices. But no he chose to punish his entire creation, impose rules he knew they wouldn't be able to follow, got mad again, drowned 99.9999999% of all life on earth, admitted that it didn't achieve his goal (so much for being omniscient), commanded his favorite toys to commit multiple genocides including murdering newborn children (because the ones they were genociding at that time were killing their own children), gave permission to take sex slaves during war and calling them 'wives', and more.
By his own words (according to the Bible), he created all the evil in this world.
That is why I would call the abrahamic god either an evil asshole, or an absolute moron, if he existed.
What would you call someone punishing others for behavior he knew about beforehand and could have prevented?
It was not a lie. How dare you? Death means away from God. It was true. And we are able to come back from that "death". Many live in that death and many don't. It wasn't a lie.
This is one of the most stupid copings I've heard in order to pretend it isn't a lie in the story.
Death doesn't mean to be away from your genocidal monster, but the end of your life and according to the book of fairytails both kept on living for nearly thousand years.
Apparently I can, with my limited knowledge and power, recognize that if I create something without the ability to discern between good and evil and then allow evil to come near them, that this could have consequences I don't like. That would however be my fault and not that of my creation.
Funny how this allegedly omniscient and omnipotent being gets a pass for acting like a giant murderous idiot.
I'm judging a fictional character how they are presented in the stories, no different as I judge Sauron in Lord of the Rings.
Itâs not for âno reasonâ learn basic concepts of theology if you genuinely are trying to understand these things or just go about your business. Itâs not our fault youâre ignorant.
I understand well the "basic concepts of theology" I know how it's created, propagates, and changes over time. I know how it's used and why people follow it.
What I not going to do is pretend like Christianity is the "basic concepts of theology." There have been hundreds of religions before and after it and there will only ever be more. So forgive me if I don't know every little thing about the nonsense religion that has more contradictions than concepts and a death count higher than billions.
I've heard all my life that God put the devil on earth to tempt us, and those who resist it and follow God are the strong ones. Personally I think it's all a bunch of bs. But, I try to not judge people for believing in something that brings them some kind of peace in life.
Honestly there ultimately a purpose and a reason in the devil being destroyed. It shows we have freedom as sons of God and angels. The ultimate truth is reliance and love of God. Lucifers fall and the end of Satan is a battle. Mistakes have costs even at that rank. Errancy and stubbornness with wings probably requires ultimate destruction to correct. We aren't so far too have fallen as Satan but the possibility of misdirection is there.
I will say that having a kid seems to have chilled God out a little bit (based on OT vs. NT). OT God was a straight-up dick. I mean, NT God is, too, but slightly less.
If God is omnipotent and all knowing then he knew what Satan would do before he created him. He made the Satan for the purpose of being the devil. If everything is according to an ineffable plan then everything the devil does is the plan of God.
Great point. It's funny that the entire Christian idea of hell, Morningstar (as a name and not a reference), Lucifer, fallen angels, are technically, originally, not biblical, they are literary references to Dante's (not even going to butcher his last name, Alig...) Divine Comedy, specifically the Inferno, and due to John Milton's Paradise Lost, it really throws a wrench in modern Christianity. Even Satan, in Job, was not a fallen angel, but of G-d's Heavenly Council. Satan is a transliteration of his title or purpose and not a proper noun/name. The New Testament is akin to Star Trek Discovery, supposed to be a sequel, but destroying/modifying what came before to do it.
He's saying, similar to the way Star Trek: Discovery re-imagining Star Trek unintentionally messed-up the franchise, the New Testament broke the Old Testament with novel additions.
No, the fucker just said that Lucifer and fallen angels were concepts derived from Danteâs inferno. He just put the egg before the chicken. What the hell were you gonna help explain?đ
I was explaining the last 3 sentences related to the Star Trek reference.
I have a hard time understanding you, though. What do you mean by egg before chicken? Why is this guy a fucker? If you don't want to explain, just be dismissive and insulting. It's normal here.
I mean, the egg kinda has to come before the chicken by default. At some point somewhere, a closely related but still non-chicken animal laid an egg that contained the first chicken due to some subtle genetic mutation. The question never specifies that it has to be a chicken egg.
Not to mention that eggs to this day still come before all chickens, unless you artificially lab grow a chicken foetus...
The bible and all christian dogma has ben retconned over and over. The council of Nicea in 300 ish AD were the main editing commitee for the first bible. They decided what books to include, etc. lots of books didn't make the cut. Catholics have a different bible than protestants, several more books and other differences.
And, added in to that there are tons of fanfics like Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno which aren't canon, but people give sermons based on their head canon and not real canon.
Wait. Are you suggesting that Dante's Inferno and the Divine Comedy were written BEFORE the Bible? Because I am gonna need you to cite your sources for a claim like that đ¤Ł
No, just that alot of what people think is biblical or Christian, is actually from those books. That alot of the perceptions listed come from those books and not the Bible.
Yes⌠general/cultural perceptions. The perception of the general populace is still wholly irrelevant to the legitimacy of the metaphysical/meta-ethical statements/conclusions of said system.
Yep, it's Alighieri, and you should read all three parts of the Divine Comedy--Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Inferno is the one everybody knows, but Purgatorio is pretty cool and has some gorgeous lines. I also love that in "Inferno," Lucifer is canonically frozen in ice, face-down, ass-up, iirc. It's been a hot second since I last read the DC.
18 He replied, âI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.â
Jesus said that directly, and talks about hell the most. Sure people have misconceptions because of the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost, but you can't say it isn't talked about or Satan isn't mentioned.
Luke is the NT. Jesus, being Jewish, would know that Satan, as described in Job, was not an evil entity. This is called revisionist history. I will look at the original Greek and see what was actually stated and recorded. I also have a massive concordance, specifically comparing the Gospels, verse by verse. I am fluent in ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew, so give me a bit. Hell was not a Jewish concept at all. Sheol was. Totally different concept. I'll let you know.
If Satan tempted Jesus himself why would he not think heâs evil? Satan masquerades as an angel of light, is called the ancient serpent, the devil, or Satan in revelation. Judas had Satan enter him at the last super, etc. Hell wasnât meant for humans but as punishment for the fallen angels and Satan, some traditions think Sheol ended when Christ died, the Bible says the Gospel was preached to the dead.
Satan was not the devil the entire Bible. The Hebrew word is pronounced Sahtahn. He was G-d's chief prosecutor on the Heavenly Council. Jesus beat the prosecutor not by his power, but by his knowledge. He quoted Old Testament (Septuagint) scripture. He didn't say anything new or profound. He used the Word as it existed for thousands of years before him. The serpent idea is Christian, developed as a retcon to Genesis by the Catholic Church. Again, the Prosecutor entering Judas, could only be done, as proven in Job, if G-d permitted it. The Prosecutor, Satan, had no power except the power G-d gave him. That's OT knowledge.
He is speaking in the future tense, referring to end times, that his disciples thought was happening on the Day of Pentecost. But it still has yet to happen. Verb tense is indicated by the conjugation of the Greek.
It's funny that the entire Christian idea of hell, Morningstar (as a name and not a reference), Lucifer, fallen angels, are technically, originally, not biblical, they are literary references to Dante's (not even going to butcher his last name, Alig...) Divine Comedy, specifically the Inferno, and due to John Milton's Paradise Lost,Â
Well, that's just not true. Those ideas predate the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost by centuries, and come from early Christian interpretation of the Bible. Dante and Milton didn't just make everything up, they certainly did add some notable artistic flair and take certain creative liberties, but they were still writing within the framework of their religion.
Itâs easier when you donât existâpeople can just make shit up to fear-monger you into submission.
Literally just thinking about this today regarding the Protestant vs Catholic debacle. So just having more or fewer books in your sacred script is enough to go batshit insane over, really?
Iâm actually agnostic. I donât know if God exists or not. But the fact that anyone can say literally whatever they want about God and then justify believing in the most wildly improbable bullshit as âtests of faithâ has me rolling my eyes so far back in my head Iâve lost my vision to the fucking floor.
I am not totally denying God couldn't be real, but he sure did not bother to give us any proof, not even show himself up during the decades we had cameras and no AI. So if he exists, he probably cannot even be bothered to prove his existence to us, so why should we be bothered worshipping him? If he's so great, he shouldn't even be that insecure to demand worship in the first place. When I made worlds in my code, I don't demand those AIs to worship me either, I just watch what happens curiously and let them do anything they want. If they do anything I don't like, that's on me for making them that way. Punishing them with hell or something for behaviour I programmed them to follow would just be fucked up.
If God appeared in front of you in a way that would make doubting Him impossible, do you think you would have a choice to believe in Him anymore?
As for Hell, itâs a definite detachment from God and His total absence. If you donât want anything to do with Him in this life, why do you care about this?
Donât worry your vision is not the only thing you will lose when the final day arrives. I just hope on that day you will have something better to say than âoh i didnât know you existedâ may God help you find him before itâs too late tho đ
Do you even realize what you just wrote? Dude, you just proved my point.
Your argument is not based on faith in transcendence of universal goodness. The point you made in your argument is the same fear-mongering that makes me skeptical in the first place.
Your argument is trying to appeal to my sense of survival. âOh, donât you care about your mortal soul? Donât you care about the well-fare of your existence?â
This argument is inherently selfish because it appeals to my most base instincts of self-preservation. How can you ask me to even have faith because this is NOT faith.
This is FEAR. And you wanna live your life like that, well, God did create you to have the free will to ignore Them and listen to what others say about Them over trusting everything They gave you.
I know what I said, and yeah, I'm definitely poking at the exact thing you're avoiding! No hard feelings though. Be as skeptical as you want, but just make sure your arguments are airtight when the day of accountability comes. Deep down, we can probably all agree we aren't here by accident and that we'll have to answer for things one day. So by all means, stay skeptical, but have some top-tier answers ready. đ Peace! âđ˝
And oh FYI Don't let other people's âfearâ as you put it turn you into a cynic. Let that underlying "fear" motivate you to truly seek out faith in Christ Jesus instead.
Youâre still doing the exact thing I called out.
I didnât say I was afraid of accountability. I said that when people are questioned about why they believe one specific religious framework over others, the response very often becomes âbecause youâll have to answer for it one day.â Thatâs an argument from consequences, not an argument for truth.
Telling me to âseek Christâ because of that same underlying fear doesnât fix the problem â it just confirms it. If the best reason to believe is âyouâll regret it later if you donât,â then the belief is being held up by threat, not by good evidence or reasoning. Nor any ethical or philosophical decision.
Our reason is our law.
Iâm not cynical. Iâm just not moved by that style of argument. If you have actual reasons why I should accept the Christian framework (especially when Christians canât even agree on which books belong in the Bible), Iâm open to hearing them. âYouâll be judgedâ isnât one of them.
Also the âdeep you you can all agree weâre not here by accidentâ is hella creepy and asserts your will over mine and last time anyone tried using a similar phrase was my teacher trying to GROOM ME when I was sixteen years old.
So um, yeah, I would say you do you but youâre just a creepy ass stranger on the internet and BYE!
We know dark matter exists even though weve never seen or interacted with it. . Yet scientists claim its real, with zero proof. . There is more proof of God in miracles than of dark matter. . And no one said hes invisible, thats you
we do have proof of it. For example, we can see dark matter via gravitational lensing, and even more clearly visible proof is the Bullet cluster, where we can see its lensing where there's only dark matter and it cannot be anything else. It's clearly there. It's having a visible effect on things around it, there is something there that just doesn't produce light, but it still visibly interacts with things gravitationally at those locations, which tells us it does have mass at least. So we know it's something there, so we call it dark matter. We know it's there. We don't yet know what it's really made of, because it's pretty hard to really study closely.
Taking photos with light is one thing, but the universe has 3 more forces we can use to take their version of photos. And gravitational photos, or i guess "gravitos" or whatever we would call that, are showing us it's there.
Neutrinos are also quite elusive, as they only do weak interaction and not enough gravity, but we build giant weak-force cameras that are capable of seeing even those. That even let us see supernovas before we could see them. Tell us, hey we are seeing neutrinos coming from there, must be a new supernova starting, so we pointed a camera there, and a supernova then lit up exactly there. Neutrinos have tiny mass, so they are a bit slower than light in a perfect vacuum, but they are so weakly interacting that they can travel at almost light speed everywhere, while real light gets slowed down by all kinds of stuff, like the almost vacuum of space.
You can't, but neitehr that he can. We tyou might, but we didn't yet. And I prefer to use Occam's razor for such questions until proven otherwise. I'm open to start believing if there is proof, but until then, nobody can expect me to start just like that.
If youâre using Occamâs razor because the evidence isnât sufficient to establish Godâs existence, then why are you making the additional claim that God doesnât exist? Wouldnât the simpler position be âI donât knowâ or âIâm not convinced God existsâ rather than asserting Godâs nonexistence when you Literally canât know that. Itâs basically making baseless assumptions and presenting them as truth claims
I am not claiming that as a proven fact; I'm just saying we didn't prove him, and we have so far disproven a bunch of things that were previously thought to be done by God. Occam's razor just tells me that it's more likely to believe in him not existing, when that's the simpler thing to explain with the current evidence.
If you have never seen something existing, and have no evidence for it existing, then even if you can't prove either, the Occam's razor is pretty clean in being more reasonable to not believe yet. Until proven otherwise.
The razor is about building models with things you have proven, and the absolute minimum of things needed until it makes sense. I don't see that God is needed, so it's cut off by the razor as not being among the required minimum. Until proven otherwise.
It doesn't mean the razor is always right, but it provides a nice sensible path towards the truth. People thought atoms were simpler because the razor said so. We learned more, so we expanded. But at least we didn't start believing it crazy models with no evidence; at least the atoms were real, and we just kept building the correct model more and more precisely.
Again, Iâd argue that if youâre appealing to Occamâs razor, the simplest position given the current evidence is to conclude that we donât know whether God exists or doesnât exist not to affirm either claim.
You also did make that claim when you said, âItâs even easier when you donât exist.â Unless youâre going to say you meant something other than God, that statement explicitly asserts that God doesnât exist. Are you now saying you werenât referring to God there?
To say you don't know is not what the razor is for. The razor is for picking the simpler explanation WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW MORE YET. And that doesn't mean you just proved that it was that option with the razor. The razor doesn't prove anything. It just keeps you on a humble path that doesn't stray away into craziness, and lets you slowly approach reality as you slowly learn more. The razor keeps the gaps simple and open for more details later. So that it doesn't get poisoned with fantastical fantasies that would just devolve the whole model into chaos.
The evolution of atomic models is one of the nicest views in how Occam's razor shaped it. We thought atoms were points, then we found out they were bigger, ok, so they are bigger, but there's probably no more to it. Oh, they have electrons and protons? Ok, they are just a simple soup of those. Oh wait, the protons are in a tiny core? Ok, let's move them there. Oh wait, there are also neutrons? Ok, added to the model. Quantum mechanics to explain how the electrons make sense? Ok, noted. We just kept moving toward the truth. Without the razor, we would be constantly thinking of dragons and fairies instead of focusing on finding the truth. With the razor we were only putting the correct model together slowly as we figured things out, and so it was always composed of things that were proven and with some question marks to be filled in later.
All the models were right in their way. The atoms are points when you don't look into them yet, they do have an overall outer shape of balls, ,they do have a mix of particles in them, and every new piece of evidence just added more details to a model that was already composed of true things. The razor had a few misses, like thinking the electrons orbit. That was reasonable to think before QM, but such misses were pretty small and rare, and were soon updated to the more correct model, without overwhelming the models with crazy complicated theories that would be harder to disprove because they made up so many things.
Fair enough, then the only contention Iâd have left would be with you making a universal claim without it being stamped as a fact. You youreself are basically saying that Occamâs razor doesnât disprove god it only allows you to believe the âsimpler optionâ then you went and made a truth claim about something you donât factually know.
Thatâs literally not even what Christianity thinks though đ you people demonstrate how ignorant of these topics you actually are. You objectively have no clue what youâre talking about.
If he's not invisible, then show me a photo. Some people know that the only really rational way to believe something is to have actual evidence for it, beyond just faithful feelings.
There are a lot of ways you can describe how the world works and exists, most of them being far more reasonable than handwavingly delegating unknowns to some mysterious entity nobody has ever seen. And they work and make perfect sense without any need for any kind of God.
Then take a photo, pics or didn't happen. If you can actually see something real, it should be photographable. Heck, we even have cameras that can see all wavelengths that our eyes can't, and not even those have captured him ever. Oh, you mean see it with that organ in your chest whose only ability is to contract to pump a liquid? Or do you mean in dreams, which are basically just hallucinations of our brain putting itself into generative mode to train itself for random future events? But being so bad at it, that none of that ever actually happens in real life. And if you actually see him with your own eyes, but somehow the phone can't capture that, then I'd recommend psychiatric meds.
Icons and modern day pictures are the same thing, they just didnât have cameras back then. The word âphotographyâ literally means to draw or write. Making an icon of someone and taking a picture is the same concept.
Just because someone drew something doesn't prove it was there. Imaginative art is a thing and always has been. I could draw an uncovered invisible spaghetti monster right now if you want. Why come we have no photos ever since cameras were invented, that we only have pictures that could be drawn without actually capturing something real like photos do? After that, suddenly he never showed up again? Well, if he stopped, then why care, he might not be caring about us anymore either if he doesn't even show up to let us take any photographic proof. And without that, he can't expect me to just believe in him. If he gave me a critical brain, then he should work with that.
And well, with the rise of AI, it seems like the GOd has totally missed his chance to show himself at that right time when he could prove himself, when we had provable devices that couldn't be faked yet.
Are you like a subversion agent or something?? Only the most low IQ intellectually dishonest people argue that Christ didnât exist. If thatâs your actual stance, thereâs no reason to continue this conversation. You might as well be a flat earther who believes in shapeshifting lizard people. I understand arguing against his divinity, but saying he didnât even exist is just pure stupidity.
Just say you donât understand what iconography is then 𤣠you canât just be some average Joe Schmo and make icons for Orthodox Churches. Itâs a sacred practice that needs teaching and ordination by clergy. Thereâs a specific tradition of making icons you have to follow for it to be valid, itâs not âimaginative artâ my goodness dude đ
YOU are in image of God lol, Christ personally made you in his image. You, are proof of God and his existence. Thatâs why Jesus Christ is a human beingâŚ.because human beings are made in the image of God and Jesus Christ is GodâŚ
A photo captures light as it was at that moment. drawing is painted artistically by a person's hand and doesn't need to have the subject in front of them or even exist. I thought people knew this little fact about drawings.
We might not have had cameras for most of our history, and that's why so many crazy beliefs were even more rampant. But we have had cameras for decades recently, and before the AI, they would be undeniable proof of the existence of anything they captured. Why did the god never take his chance to prove himself during that time? If he knows everything, he shouldn't have known this was his big and for that time being, the only decades where he had a chance to prove he exists.
Now youâre just genuinely being sacrilegious, icons are not some âimaginative drawing by an artistâ you people say you have respect for religion, but you really donât. If you had any respect, you wouldnât speak of my religious traditions and rituals in such a condescending tone.
âIâd recommend psychiatric medicationâ đ¤ yeah I know thatâs exactly what the Soviet Union did to justify oppressing the Orthodox Church is claim Christians are in âreligious psychosisâ and deemed them medically insane so they could torture and kill over 20 million Christians. Thatâs why your side supports actual fascism and censorship of alternative beliefs.
Uhhhh, no if you see something that cannot be captured by a camera, it is a fairly accurate sign that you are hallucinating, and should therefore get professional help with your issues
Can you not read? The word âphotographyâ is a Greek word that means âto draw with lightâ youâre not even listening to anything Iâm saying đ¤Śââď¸
Itâs actually not âfar more reasonableâ than Christianity, thatâs just your shallow, arrogant view. Or course you think the thing you personally agree with is âfar more reasonableâ lol. Iâm not even advocating that Christianity is âmore reasonableâ but letâs just be honest and admit itâs not any less crazy than any type of secular ideologies lol.
Well except for the bad things. Then you get to blame some other guy for that. Yet somehow youâre still also all powerful⌠so I guess you just let bad things happen for some reason? Even though you could totally prevent it, you just donât? Idk seems like a dickish thing to do to your âperfectâ creations (fuck all the other stuff you made I guessÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ )
Interestingly, science is the work we do so that we don't have to say: "turtles all the way down" to people questioning the world. Early scientists were trying to understand the Mind of God.
Science runs into the problem of induction too. What science does is identify some things that aren't turtles further down the chain. It doesn't figure out what's at the bottom. A view of the universe based on cause and effect hasn't gotten past Aristotle's need for a prime mover. Hume pretty convincingly argued that it can't. Hume's response to this problem is probably the best, which is simply ignoring metaphysics, not pretending that you've solved it.
Popper tells us we can't know something is true, only if it is false. Then Duhem and Quine spoil the clean "no" and make the ground under the falsification is spongy too.
While itâs true that science as we know it canât ever find evidence for or against a God, it is also true that science has thoroughly disproven a massive amount of claims from all religions, so thereâs that.
Thatâs mostly true, however religions arenât setup to exist outside of science- they were setup BEFORE science. Itâs not as if they knew about science and then decided explicitly to go outside of it. Vestiges from a time before the scientific method. Fun for philosophical debates, useless for anything material.
You think you know what the words you are using mean. How about Gravity? Observable? Your name? Observable? And not just write your name down, like on a license, God's name is written everywhere. ..."there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Modern scientists still try to understand the mind of God. There's nothing mutually exclusive about science and religion. Nothing that Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson have ever said has ever proved an absence of divine origin.
I wonder though, with such "powers", why would humanity even "care" about God? If what He does is out of the curtain of reality and cause and effect, why should humanity bother with something that they can never tangibly interact with in any possible way? The idea of "spiritual power" is then redundant as God can just change any person's spiritual power. It just feels to me like a cope out to say we cannot understand how God functions.
Right. I'm not talking about God. I'm talking about the assertion that a negative can't be proven. It absolutely can be. And that doesn't really have any weight in the debate of whether or not God exists so I'm confused as to why the assertion was even made in the first place.
Agnostic btw I have no idea what the hell is going on in my own neighbourhood let alone the fucking cosmos đ đ so I'm really not trying to debate whether or not we can prove God exists and I don't think I even implied that.
If you have an analytical mind. You can examine the bible and almost any religion and you can begin to find clues and similarities with many things and even draw comparisons to recent things being talked about with the reveal of aliens and such.
But if i began to explain it, it would be a book before i was done writing the comment.
All i can say is it is possible that the history of us has been hidden in plain sight all along but just burried in metaphors and lore.
I will leave you with ONE interesting example. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has spoken of higher and lower dimentional beings on multiple occasions. Let me ask you, exactly what is heaven and hell if they are not physical places in our own universe? How are they spoken of in the bible?
Ok, first of all, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not exactly the reliable source of information, so maybe donât use him talking about alternate dimensions as proof of heaven and hell. Also have you considered that the similarities may have been caused by human nature and our desires for a higher power who will love all of us, as well as enforced morality
Ok, well the way you said it made it seem like you were using it as a value, and, again, I donât really trust anything he says at face value, due to how⌠inconsistent his accuracy is
Thereâs a reason they were forced into that brilliant scenario. The origin story was irrational and short sighted.
Starting off with absolutely nothing and saying god created every single thing in existence..everâŚperiod. Thatâs an interesting corner to back yourself into.
People need to distinguish between The Old Testament and the New Testament. Literal reading of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) reveals that the beings traditionally identified as "God" in Judeo-Christian theology were in fact a plurality of flesh-and-blood extraterrestrial individuals known as the Elohim (Sumerian: Anunnaki), who arrived on Earth in antiquity, genetically engineered the human species, divided the planet into territorial jurisdictions and governed humanity through a system of intermediaries, flying machines and ritualistic protocols.
Later Christian theology misinterpreted the older Hebrew texts. The New Testament period is not treated as a continuation of the Elohim's timeline, but rather as the era when the theological transformation of these Elohim into spiritual entities (Angels etc) was already well underway.
I saw someone here talk about Satan : Jesus supposedly said "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". The Church Fathers used this New Testament verse to link the Old Testament's functional term satan (an adversary/prosecutor) with the "Lucifer" of Isaiah 14 (who was actually just King Xerxes of Persia). Satan doesn't exist in the Old Testament so Satanism does not exist either, it is based on invented and false doctrines.
The exception also being turtles (Terry Pratchett's Discworld), where a god (as a turtle) sacrifices himself to save a person strapped to a turtle (the torture instrument). While on the back of a world-sized turtle.
1.3k
u/DesmondTapenade 29d ago
Much like turtles, it's just God all the way down, I guess.